Exxon Mobil Corp Consent Decree
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 4:17-cv-03302 Document 23 Filed in TXSD on 06/06/18 Page 1 of 160 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED June 06, 2018 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION ___________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the ) LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, ) ) Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-3302 Plaintiffs, ) ) Chief Judge Rosenthal v. ) ) EXXON MOBIL CORP. and ) EXXONMOBIL OIL CORP., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) CONSENT DECREE Case 4:17-cv-03302 Document 23 Filed in TXSD on 06/06/18 Page 2 of 160 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................6 II. APPLICABILITY ..............................................................................................................7 III. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................10 IV. CIVIL PENALTY ............................................................................................................23 V. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS ..............................................................................25 VI. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT AND LOUISIANA BENEFICIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS ................................54 VII. PERMITS .........................................................................................................................57 VIII. EMISSION CREDIT GENERATION ...........................................................................60 IX. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................62 X. STIPULATED PENALTIES ..........................................................................................66 XI. FORCE MAJEURE .........................................................................................................74 XII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ..............................................................................................77 XIII. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND RETENTION ...............................................79 XIV. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ...................................81 XV. COSTS ..............................................................................................................................87 XVI. 26 U.S.C. § 162(f)(2)(A)(ii) IDENTIFICATION…………………………………….. 87 XVII. NOTICES .........................................................................................................................87 XVIII. EFFECTIVE DATE .........................................................................................................90 XIX. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION ...............................................................................90 XX. MODIFICATION ............................................................................................................90 XXI. TERMINATION ..............................................................................................................91 XXII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...........................................................................................92 XXIII. SIGNATORIES/SERVICE .............................................................................................93 XXIV. INTEGRATION ...............................................................................................................94 XXV. FINAL JUDGMENT .......................................................................................................94 XXVI. APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................94 i Case 4:17-cv-03302 Document 23 Filed in TXSD on 06/06/18 Page 3 of 160 TABLES OF APPENDICES Table 1: NUMBER ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION 1.1 [Reserved] [Reserved] NHVcz, NHVdil, 1.2 Calculating NHVcz,NHVdil, and Vtip for Flares and Vtip Calculating the Unobstructed Cross Sectional Area of Various 1.3 Tip-Area-Eq Types of Flare Tips 1.4 G-Drwg Depiction of Gases Associated with Steam-Assisted Flares Outline of Requirements for the Flare Data and Initial 1.5 Flr-Data-Rpt Monitoring Systems Report Interim Specifications for Existing Gas Chromatographs at 1.6 GC-Specs Baytown Facilities Waste Gas Mapping: Level of Detail Needed to Show Main 1.7 WG-Map Headers and Process Unit Headers Flare Gas Recovery Systems – Description and Compliance 1.8 FGRS Reqt’s Dates ii Case 4:17-cv-03302 Document 23 Filed in TXSD on 06/06/18 Page 4 of 160 Table 2: NUMBER ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION 2.1 SEP and BEPs SEP and BEP Protocols 2.2 Fenceline Monitoring Fenceline Monitoring Requirements iii Case 4:17-cv-03302 Document 23 Filed in TXSD on 06/06/18 Page 5 of 160 Concurrently with the lodging of this Consent Decree, Plaintiff, the United States of America (“United States”), on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), has filed a complaint in this action seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties from the Defendants, Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (collectively referred to herein as the “Defendants”), for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act (the “CAA” or “Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq., with respect to emissions of volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”), hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”), and other pollutants at the Defendants’ chemical, olefins, polymer, and plastics manufacturing facilities located in or near Baytown, Texas (the “Baytown Facilities”), Beaumont, Texas (the “Beaumont Facilities”), Baton Rouge, Louisiana (the “Baton Rouge Facilities”), and Mont Belvieu, Texas (the “Mont Belvieu Facility”); The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) is a co-Plaintiff in the Complaint and is seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties from the Defendants for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and Louisiana Environmental Quality Act (“LEQA”), La.R.S. 30:2001 et seq., at the Baton Rouge Facilities; WHEREAS, the Defendants own and operate the Baytown Facilities, Beaumont Facilities, Baton Rouge Facilities, and Mont Belvieu Facility (collectively, the “Covered Facilities”), including the Steam-Assisted and Air-Assisted Flares used at those facilities as safety devices and to control emissions of air pollutants generated by the manufacturing processes; WHEREAS, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated one or more of the following federal Clean Air Act and/or Louisiana or Texas state air pollution requirements: 1 Case 4:17-cv-03302 Document 23 Filed in TXSD on 06/06/18 Page 6 of 160 a. The New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart A, pursuant to Section 111 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7411; b. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAPs”) promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subparts A, J, V, and FF and 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subparts A, F, G, H, U, YY, and FFFF, pursuant to Section 112 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412; c. The Title V requirements of the CAA found at 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661a(a), 7661b(c), 7661c(a); and 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.1(b), 70.5(a) and (b), 70.6(a) and (c), and 70.7(b); d. The portions of the Title V permits for the Baytown Facilities, Beaumont Facilities, Baton Rouge Facilities, and Mont Belvieu Facility that adopt, incorporate, or implement the provisions cited in a–b and e; and e. The federally enforceable Louisiana and Texas state implementation plan (SIP) provisions that incorporate, adopt, and/or implement the federal requirements listed in a–c. WHEREAS, the Defendants have installed systems and equipment to recover Waste Gas generated by process units at their four polymer and plastics manufacturing facilities (the Mont Belvieu Plastics Plant, the Beaumont Polyethylene Plant, the Baton Rouge Plastics Plant, and the Baton Rouge Polyolefins Plant) before that Waste Gas reaches the facility’s Flare header (“In- Process Waste Gas Recovery Systems”). These systems and equipment, which are required to be operated by the four facilities’ federally enforceable CAA operating permits, include: • A Purge Gas Purification Unit at the Baton Rouge Plastics Plant which has a nominal design capacity to recover 7.9 mscf per Day of Waste Gas; • A Vapor Recovery Unit, an Ethylene Return Recovery Unit, and a Polypropylene Flare Gas Recovery Unit at the Baton Rouge Polyolefins Plant. These units collectively have a nominal design capacity to recover 4.3 mscf per Day of Waste Gas; 2 Case 4:17-cv-03302 Document 23 Filed in TXSD on 06/06/18 Page 7 of 160 • Three Hexane Recovery Units and an Ethylene Recovery Unit at the Beaumont Polyethylene Plant which collectively have a nominal design capacity to recover 2.6 mscf per Day of Waste Gas; and • A Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) Recovery Unit and a flameless thermal oxidizer at the Mont Belvieu Plastics Plant. The LDPE recovery unit has a nominal design capacity to recover 1.25 mscf per Day of Waste Gas and the flameless thermal oxidizer has a nominal design capacity to combust 3.2 mscf per Day of Waste Gas at a Combustion Efficiency of at least 99.5%. WHEREAS, the Defendants have provided a significant level of cooperation to the EPA prior to entry of this Consent Decree by undertaking studies of Flare Combustion Efficiency at an olefins manufacturing facility and a plastics manufacturing facility, implementing Flare flow reduction and Combustion Efficiency improvements at the Covered Facilities, and reducing emissions from the Covered Flares. These actions